Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Breakfast topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House debates bill asking schools to evaluate need for school breakfast; supporters, opponents clash
Summary
Lawmakers debated House Bill 195, which would require local schools to evaluate the need for a school breakfast program (with opt-out). Supporters cited improved attendance and test scores; opponents argued it intrudes on local control and risks dependency and fiscal cost. The House recorded 35 votes in favor; transcript ambiguous on final passage.
House members spent an extended period debating House Bill 195, a State Board of Education–endorsed measure that would require local school boards to evaluate the need for a school breakfast program while allowing districts to opt out.
Sponsor Representative S. Allen said the bill is backed by the PTA, the Utah Education Association and the Department of Human Services and ‘‘asks schools to evaluate the need for school breakfast in their school’’ rather than impose a statewide mandate. She told the chamber the measure ‘‘allows them to opt out’’ if local officials deem it impractical.
Lawmakers who supported the bill said school breakfast is an investment in education. ‘‘School breakfast definitely improves the test scores and the academic performance of the children,’’ James Suazo told the House, adding it ‘‘decreases tardiness, it decreases absenteeism, and it decreases discipline problems.’’
Opponents urged deference to local school boards and parents. One member said the legislature should not ‘‘go in and over the heads of our local school authorities’’ to mandate programs that local communities can already adopt, and questioned placing new obligations on principals and boards. Another speaker, identifying personal experience as the parent of 10 children, argued expanded social programs risk creating dependency and warned of potentially large fiscal costs if federal support declined.
Sponsor and proponents repeatedly emphasized the bill’s limited scope. Representative S. Allen told colleagues the bill ‘‘does not mandate’’ schedule changes or force districts to implement a program — local boards would ‘‘determine that themselves based on a unique situation.’’ Proponents also cited existing local programs such as FACT and examples like Mona Elementary, which already operates a breakfast program.
After extended debate the House held a roll call; the clerk announced ‘‘I received 35 this vote.’’ The transcript records that tally and related procedural language but is ambiguous about whether the votes met the threshold for final passage in the House. The bill remained subject to subsequent procedural filings and referral steps noted in the record.
Next steps: The House closed its business for the day and adjourned to reconvene the following morning; any further action would be reflected in subsequent House proceedings or the journal.
